How Protected are Your Protected Values

A632.5.4.RB

Based on Irwin and Baron's discussion (pg.251); Reflect on three of your major protected values, support those values with at least three major beliefs and show the pros and cons of each belief in terms of trade-offs you are willing to make to support or not support that belief. Do you feel as strongly about them as you did when you began this exercise?

Protected values are the values that people hold with such conviction that they are unwilling to yield to any form of trade-offs. According to Irwin and Baron (2005), “People often draw a line in the sand to create values that are protected from trade-offs. These protected values (PVs) are considered absolute and inviolable” (p. 152). After reflecting on my personal values, I have identified the following three protected values that have developed over time and personal experiences, they are: education, safety/security, and the family unit. Also during this reflection, I was able to identify the driving force of these beliefs and trace the origin (peeling the onion) to its establishment that further guided my actions, personality, and profession. For example, growing up as the youngest of three boys, raised by a single mother, specific terms kept coming to mind as I thought about it. Words like: struggle, ignorance, mental/emotional starvation (from nurturement), and uncertainty. To provide context, because our mother worked two jobs to provide the basic necessities for the family, the eldest of the kids (teenager) was left to help raise the other kids (youths). Needless to say, education was not among the top priorities, safety/security was relative, and the concept of a family unit was less than ideal. At some point I was able to break away from this environment and the family dynamics that seem to trap those unwilling to travel beyond their comfort zone.

Thus, through this journey, it started to become clear to me that education was a significant factor as it developed knowledge and growth, as well as revealed how much I truly didn’t know. I believe that education serves as the foundation for a productive and fruitful life. Ultimately, the individual decides where and how to use their abilities, that in and of itself, provides options. Having options as a result of education or specialty (trade) allows its possessor to have more control over their situation and circumstances. This compared to someone who has a limited education and is in a position of living reactively to their situation and circumstances. As a tax payer, I am willing to ensure that public schools have the funds necessary to provide a quality education to their students. Moreover, I believe that everyone should have educational opportunities at any stage of their life. The benefit of having education available increases the individual’s capabilities and earning potential, as well as ensuring that the community at large has productive contributors to the whole through taxes, involvement, and possible community leadership. The con is that this is an individual driven process. In other words, one cannot make another benefit from an education, merely make it law that those under a certain age attend school. Furthermore, this process is dependent on producing future contributors. Thus, when individuals fail to contribute by actively choosing to live off government services and not “replenish the well,” these actions can lead to the straining of the system. Nevertheless, I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to decide their course. With education, they chart a path that provides better opportunities, more options and positive control over their situation.

As I noted above, safety and security (safety/security) while growing up was dependent; in that we as a family and as kids raising kids lived reactively to our conditions and as a result of our own devices. Having witnessed first-hand the chaotic nature of merely surviving and the environment the survival mode breeds, I believe that everyone should enjoy safety/security in their everyday lives. In fact, as a high school junior, I concluded that I wanted to be a part of a strong, capable, and caring group to provide such safety to others and desired to enter the law enforcement profession. I felt so passionately about this course of action that I majored in criminal justice for my undergraduate degree. Through this experience, I expanded my scope of safety/security for others that I eventually pursued and received a commission in the U.S. Army Military Police Corps. I believe we as human beings or as a community have the obligation to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. I mean this in the context of those actively hurting others (crimes) for any form of gain or malicious intent. No person (law abiding) should be forced to live under such duress in a way that it affects or impacts their lives in a negative manner. The benefit is that when communities operate in a safe environment, participation is encouraged and relationships are strengthened. The con side of this is again that individually driven. People decide (free will) to commit heinous acts against others. Even though the most effective and best trained police force cannot prevent all crimes, such a force would be postured in a way to educate and work with the communities it serves in order to better provide the safety/security that is needed.

The family unit I knew growing up was far from ideal. However, I believe that the family unit (according to any groups definition) should involve loving relationships, growth and development, and be a joint adventure. Unfortunately, there are many external and internal factors that challenge this value. In fact, it is these challenges that place its participants in a position of compromising or abandoning this value. According Irwin and Baron (2005), “But a deeper concern is that people sometimes abandon their values deliberately. This may be because these values are not well constructed and so only appear to be strongly held because they have not been put to the test” (p. 253). Indeed, such adversity and tests have the ability to refine our perceived values. Nevertheless, I believe that the family unit is among one of the most powerful and productive means to addressing many of the issues we as a society have self-created. The negative side to this equation is that there are time and situations in which attempting to keep a family unit would cause more injury than not. This factor cannot be ignored, because at every stage of our lives, our priorities change, our perspective expands, or we just happen to grow apart for whatever reason. These unfortunate events may set in-motion the strengthening of the family unit as a protect value or perhaps because the family unit was a protected value, the situation evolved to the family dismantling (safety concerns, etc.).  

Protected values are values that are inherent or develop over time and experiences. Through the course of life and different context, these protective values cause one at some level to reevaluate their values and/or the cost to benefit of making such trade-offs. According to Jonathan Baron and Mark Spranca (1997):

People who hold protected values may behaviorally trade them off for other things - by risking lives or by sacrificing nature or human rights - but they are not happy with themselves for doing so, if they are aware of what they are doing. They are caught in binds that force them to violate some important value, but the value is no less important to them because of this behavioral violation.

I believe that it is important to periodically take stock of our values. As we grow and our understanding of things/people/events around us expands, it would behoove us to stay abreast of our own protected values. Furthermore, it would benefit us to use situational (scenario) conditions that could affect or compromise our values in order to conduct our own testing of our values. For example, I was forced to conduct such an internal test of my values when as a young leader, I was deployed to Iraq. With the noted protective values above, would I be able to deprive someone (in a combat environment) of these closely held values of mine if put in a life and death situation. After much though and reflection, I was able to compromise (to a degree) that I would be able to hold the lives of others (non-combative & other coalition forces) above the belief that everyone is entitled to such values I held as I was fully aware that my service to a large group people required that I make the best decision in a difficult situation that ensure our success and safety.

References

Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 70, 1-16.

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1^st edition). Kindle edition.

Deception in Negotiations

A632.4.4.RB

During the course of negotiations, people often misrepresent information to gain at least a temporary advantage. For example, a seller may fabricate existence of another interested buyer or a buyer may misrepresent the price and availability of an item from a different vendor. Reflect on deceptions in negotiations and describe four ways to evaluate information during negotiations. Relate an example of a recent negotiation in which you have been misled and one in which you may have overstated a claim.; define how far you would be willing to go to leverage your position.

According to the Business Dictionary (n.d.), negotiation is the “Bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict.” The act of negotiating is done, to some degree, on a daily basis. While this process may be common, so too is the deception that is associated with it. According to Maurice Schweitzer (2005), “During the course of negotiations, people often misrepresent information to gain at least a temporary advantage,” he continues by noting that, “Deception of some kind is an inherent part of human interaction” (p. 188).

Holding a temporary advantage in the negotiation process can lead to some people altering the truth of their intentions/position or outright fabricating their situation entirely. This deception typically occurs in the form of telling lies of omission or lies of commission. Schweitzer (2005) highlights,

One study found that 28 percent of negotiators lied about a common interest issue during negotiations, while another study found that 100 percent of negotiators either failed to reveal a problem or actively lied about it during negotiations if they were not directly asked about the issue (p. 188).

So how can we safeguard ourselves and the organizations we represent? The truth is that detecting lies can be extremely difficult. This is especially true when dealing with charismatic and seasoned negotiators. According to Leslie John (2016), “Humans are particularly inept at recognizing lies that are cloaked in flattery… We’re wired to readily accept information that conforms to our preexisting assumptions or hopes.” Yet the good news is that there some ways to evaluate the information during the negotiation process.

These four steps include:

Establish trust: This step is important in establishing a foundation of mutual trust before the negotiation process. “This tactic will reduce the possibility that others will employ defensive justification” (Schweitzer, 2005, p. 196).

Ask direct questions: Going into a negotiation situation, there will be certain information that is generally known and some information that may be assumptions or likely to be known. In either case, one method I like to exercise is to ask a direct question about something that we both know to be true or certain and note their response. Furthermore, I will also ask a direct question about something that I may not necessary know or they are under the impression that I do not know and compare this response with the “known” information response. This leads into the next two steps.

Listen carefully: As a designated negotiator, they (& you) are privy to certain information such as: bottom line factors, willing to sacrifice, and intentions. After entering the dialog phase, it is important to listen to what your counterpart is saying, how they are saying it (frame), and what they continuously highlight or work towards. When listening carefully, one may be able to pick-up on possible dodging or avoidance in responses.

Pay attention to nonverbal cues: Nonverbal cues are the body’s natural responses to certain stressors that occur very subtlety. In fact, as a former law enforcement professional, training in body language (nonverbal cues) is an essential survival skill. For someone who is not well versed in identifying and deciphering many of the bodies telltales, one may never even know they have occurred. Thus, when negotiating, it is important to know some of the most common nonverbal cues, such as: breaking eye contact (western culture), crossed arms/legs, clearing throat, deep breath, grooming gesture, Illustrators, shifting in chair, early response, and delayed response (Reid Technique, 2008).

After reflecting on recent negotiation where I have been misled, I found it difficult to come up with a suitable example for two reasons. The first, I have been out of the workforce as a result of retirement from military service for the better part of two years; the second, I have not purchased anything significant recently that would require a true negotiation situation as described above. In lesser more common negotiations, if I was misled, I was surely unaware of it. However, I am currently in the process of having significant repairs to my rv, to the point where an insurance adjustor has been actively assisting me repairing the damage. While discussing the needed work with the company that is repairing the rv, I have negotiated the installation of new or upgraded equipment into the rv that I purchased on my own, but under the agreed upon reinstallation rate established by the insurance company. For example, one of the repairs on the rv includes a roof replacement. To do this, everything on the roof needs to be removed and reinstalled. One such items to be removed and reinstalled is the old and outdated tv antenna. Thus, since the existing repair contract includes this work to be done, I have paid for a new antenna system (own funds) to replace the existing one. After discussing this with the repair company, they were more than willing to accommodate for two reasons; first, the repair to be done is a very profitable contract, second, they were going to reinstall a tv antenna regardless, which one made little difference to them. In this situation, it was a win-win scenario.

References

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1^st edition.). Kindle Edition.

John, L. (2016). How to Negotiate with a Liar. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/07/how-to-negotiate-with-a-liar.

Negotiation. (n.d.). Business Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/negotiation.html.

Subject Interview Sheet. (2008). The Reid Technique of Behavior Analysis Interview Questions. John E. Reid & Associates.

Reflections on Decision Making

A632.3.4.RB

Shoemaker and Russo discuss the hazards associated with "frame blindness" and how to guard against it.  Discuss three ways you can avoid "framing traps" and provide a detailed example of each from your life experience.  Could you have framed each situation differently? What did the exercise teach you about complex decision-making? What additional tools or "frames" would've helped you through the process? How much "risk" do you feel was in your recommendation? What did you learn about yourself through this exercise? 

In chapter 8 of our course text, Paul Schomaker and Edward Russo (2005) define a frame as “a stable, coherent cognitive structure that organizes and simplifies the complex reality that a manager operates in” (p. 134). These frames allow us to filter situational information and focus our attention on certain aspects of complex problems in order to create possible solutions.  Furthermore, the authors highlight three types of frames that include: 1) Problem frames that are used to create solutions 2). Decision frames that are used to choose alternatives, and 3). Thinking frames that consist of a mental structure that are grounded in experience (p. 134).

Although frames provide a benefit that allows for quick and guided decision making, it however has a downside that include frame blindness and framing traps. Frame blindness is being unaware of the frames that affect our thinking and decision making process. According to Schomaker & Russo (2005), “All too often, managers look out at the world through one mental window and fail to notice the views offered by other windows,” the authors continue, “Worse yet, they may not even realize they are doing so” (p. 139). The other downside, are frame traps. Framing traps have the potential to distort ones thinking and impose limits on their ability to create solutions by affecting their perceived yardstick and reference points (Schomaker & Russo, 2005, p. 137).

The authors present three frame management steps to avoid these traps.

1. See the Frame by Conduction a Frame Audit: As a decision maker, it is important to identify and accept that our frames play a significant role in our thinking process. Thus, it is vital that we explore our frames by surfacing them and the frames of others (p. 142).
2. Identify and Change Inadequate Frames: As decision makers, we must continuously take stock of our frames, consider how current and effective they are, and confront their roundedness. In other words, “We must constantly challenge our own frames” (p. 146).
3. Master Techniques for Reframing: In order to develop better decision making abilities, we must be willing to revise our perspective and reframe; as well as explore multiple frames that could contribute to additional perspectives.

Schomaker & Russo (2005) provide valuable insight and guidance on the identification and management of frames. Furthermore, they provide a “Toolkit” to better frame as we operate in today’s complex environment.

One instance that comes to mind as I reflect on my decision-making frame was when I was an organizational leader in the military. I had a young Soldier with less than one year in service begin to have domestic issues with his young wife, who recently gave birth. Although this Soldier’s Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) support channels were actively engage from the beginning, the situation eventually elevated to my level due to military police becoming involved. As I weighed all factors involve, I could not help but to be influenced on my own experiences with the same situation of domestic issues growing up (reference point). This frame led me to believe that this behavior was a result of more significant issues within the family element that contributed to their situation.

It was only after talking with this young Soldier and his immediate NCOs (get others views) that I realized that this situation was a direct result of a young couple with limited coping skills and life experience that were having trouble with the constant stressors brought on with military service. Internally I had always known this to be a major factor, which is why I stayed away from such relationships during this time in my life. Yet, not everyone shared my point of view on the topic (rightfully so). However, my frame in this case was overpowering something I already knew. As I further reflected on the situation, I realized that my frame was not being helpful or useful as a decision maker and that this had the potential for compounding the situation had I not reframed and explored others perspective. Indeed, with this new frame, I decided on a course of action that involved greater support and leadership involvement, to include counseling that would provide much needed communication and coping skills. I am confident that if I remained stuck in my previous frame, neither the organization nor the young couple would have benefited.

References

Hoch, S. J. & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1^st edition). Kindle Edition.

Framing Complex Decisions

A632.3.3.RB

Describe the 3 different methodologies of dealing with complex, multiple stakeholders, and environmental decision processes in your organization. Reflect on the process you would apply to ensure the most successful process possible. Describe each element in detail and make clear the available options and consequences.

With the increase globalization and technological advances that make information and knowledge widely available, organizational leaders are facing more dynamic and complex situations than ever before. Within this fluid environment, decision makers are finding that in order to make the best decisions possible, they must make sense of fragmented information and trends by using methods such as a Decision Support System (DSS) and unifying decision making models.

These conditions were ever present during my time in the U.S. Army. As a military police organization, leaders at all levels were required to make important timely decisions, many times with incomplete information. Within this context, decision makers used significant activity (SIGACTs) reports (data mining) to evaluate and analyze possible insider and external threats. According the Wharton (2005) text, “Managers are using tools such as data mining and data warehousing to harness this avalanche of data in their business decisions” (Kleindorfer, p. 121). Moreover, with the responsibility of safety and security measures potentially affecting different areas of the larger organization, there were cases where system complexity was increased due to the involvement of multiple entities. According to Kleindorfer (2005), “In former times, these system interactions were simply ignored, but as businesses (and decisions) have come to depend more upon networks, these interactions can no longer be ignored” (p. 122).

Indeed, crossing system boundaries required a new challenge for processing and using such networks collaboratively. Doing so, presents a means to develop more options and resources in that it allows decision makers to align their respective goals and resources to benefit the many oppose to the one; as well as increase the resources available to create alternative solutions. One such model was discussed during the previous week’s general assignment, specifically during the mission analysis portion of the military decision making process where information, data, facts, assumptions, etc. are evaluated to develop clear situational awareness and direction for decision makers. Kleindorfoer (2005) notes, “These models build on three important pillars: data, the model itself, and some means of optimizing or evaluating alternative decisions in the context of the model” (p. 122). Although the benefits for a collaborative effort for crossing system boundaries increase capabilities and resources to establish a joint strategy, the main challenge would be aligning each system’s concerns and priorities. A way for decision makers to accomplish this mutual understanding by incorporate methods offered by Schoemaker and Russo (2005), to avid framing traps, which causes the simplification of issues and frame blindness, which involves being unaware of frames that have significant risks. To ensure that these efforts remain fruitful, I believe establishing a committee with each stakeholder so that communications is on-going and where new ideas and opportunities have a place to develop.

This leads to the discussion of complexity of dealing multiple stakeholders and the environmental decision process. The complexity of having multiple stakeholder involved in a process can be daunting experience. While each stakeholder has their own goals, needs, wants, and interest in mind; it is essential to develop and align concerns, priorities. resource availability and regulatory factors. For example, one of the most important annual requirement for any military installation is its Antiterrorism (AT) exercise. As one would imagine, there are many organizations that combine efforts and resources in order to address possible threats. In fact, over the course of the past decade, such planning and exercises have gain tractions as a result of active shooters incidents and attacks on heavily populated venues. With the unification of so many stakeholders involved, the Army (along with external stakeholders) conduct seven different type of exercises to reveal planning weakness, identify gaps in resources, clarify roles and responsivities and improve coordination. They include:

1.     Discussion-Based Exercises:

a.      Seminar

b.     Workshop

c.      Table Top (small scale rehearsals)

d.     Game (war gaming)

2.     Operations-Based Exercises:

a.      Drill

b.     Functional

c.      Full-Scale (Antiterrorism Officer Advance Course Handbook, 2013, p. 7).

In many cases, the timeline and standards for this annual event takes many weeks to prepare for and conduct as there are many organizations that take part, such as: first responders (police/fire), hospital/medical, security forces, civilian local community leaders, hazardous material, and government regulators. “What these standards are depends on the outcome of an ongoing, complex social process between industry, the public and public surrogates such as regulators and lawmakers” (Kleindorfer, 2005, p. 126). Moreover, as a result of the countless hours planning and executing, there is a wealth of historical data and After Action Reports (AARs) that assist with establishing best practices and setting the conditions for future alternatives. According to Kleindorfer (2005), “When this multiparty approach is coupled with detailed knowledge of historical trends and outcomes, provided by the types of data and systems modeling described earlier, a company can integrate and communicate its market and investment strategies to all affected stakeholders in a responsible manner” (p. 127). With this level of coordinating and involvement (cross functional), framing shared issues and concerns is vital for the overall success of the exercise and each organization’s resource management. The challenge I believe mainly lies on the military side in that military personnel typically rotate in and out of positions every 2-3 years. Which means that historical data and standard operating procedures are even more important as new leaders will be forced to undergo these large-scale exercises with limited experience.

The complexity decision makers face today will continue to require the need for DSS and models to provide greater capabilities from incomplete and unprocessed information. This is important because of the large amount of information/data inputs that rarely make sense by itself have a valuable impact when properly analyzed. Moreover, complexity increases when decision makers must incorporate stakeholder and environmental factors. These complexities can be mitigated when leaders consider stakeholder’s perspectives by avoiding common decision framing traps and explore consensus-building activities as noted above. Thus, “Managers will increasingly need to prepare the groundwork and capabilities for choice and use these capabilities to confront and deal with the moving targets as they appear in real time” (Kleindorfer, 2005, p. 129).

References

Antiterrorism Officer Advance Course Handbook. (November 2013). Antiterrorism Branch. United States Army Military Police School.

Kleindorfer, P. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1^st edition). Kindle Edition.

Schoemaker, P. and Russo, J. (2005). Wharton on making decision. (1^st edition). Kindle Edition.

Sheena Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

A632.2.3.RB

We all want customized experiences and products -- but when faced with 700 options, consumers freeze up. With fascinating new research, Sheena Iyengar demonstrates how businesses (and others) can improve the experience of choosing. Identify four of the methodologies Sheena Iyengar suggests as methods of helping us improve our experience in choosing. Discuss the implications of two of these methods in terms of your own decision-making as an individual and a member of an organization. How else can you improve your ability to decide?

Many of us are bombarded with countless options and inputs as consumers and decision-makers. Sheena Iyengar (2011) believes that having so many choices leads to decision paralysis. In fact, Iyengar (2011) describes this as a choice overload problem which “affects us even in very consequential decisions, we choose not to choose even when it goes against our best self-interest.” Indeed, while many companies feel that the best way to accommodate their customers is to provide a little bit of everything for everyone. This belief, according to Iyengar’s (2011) studies revealed the contrary. For example, in one of her experiments, customers were presented with six jams and twenty-four jams for tasting, although more customers stopped to taste the twenty-four jams, many did not buy a jar of jam. However, of those that did stop to taste the six jam options, (30%) more people bought a jar of jam. Overall, choice overload drastically affects consumers and decision makers’ engagement, decision quality and satisfaction (Iyengar, 2011).

Iyengar (2011) also provided four techniques to mitigate the choice overload problem in order to make decision making more productive. These techniques include the following:

1. Cut: The ability to cut or limit the amount of options which lends itself to the belief that less is more. By preventing the initial overload, we are better suited to evaluate more practical options.

2. Concretize: When making decisions, consumers must understand the differences in their choices by comprehending the consequences of such decisions.

3. Categorization: People are able to process categories more effectively as it relates to differences than in choosing options; only when such categories make sense to the choosers (consumers) oppose to the choice maker.

4. Condition for complexity: Consumers (decision makers) are better at making decisions that involve more complexity when lead into the process at a gradual pace. Such conditioning allows the consumer to prepare and build excitement for upcoming more complex decision choices.

In terms of my decision-making process, I find that I cut and concretize more often than not. For example, not long ago I was in the market for a good pair of every-day walking shoes. Due to on-going back and knee pain, I concluded that I was willing to sacrifice price for comfort. As I began researching the best pair, I had three requirements in mind: functionality, versatility, and durability. During my initial search, there were over a hundred-recommended pair of shoes. Thus, in an effort to limit (cut) the choices, I began using the search filters which eventually brought my search down to three pairs of shoes that fit my needs. It was at this point that I shifted to the concretization part of making the best decision. Of the three pairs options and specialization, I conducted a visualization exercise with each pairs pros and cons to give greater weight and life to my decision. At this point I narrowed my search to two pairs and visited a local shoes store with the two pairs so that I could touch and try out each. Ultimately, I settled for a Merrell hiking shoe that suited my requirements and needs. I was able to come to an educated and definitive decision from hundreds to one in a relatively short period of time because I unknowingly used two of Iyengar’s (2011) techniques of making choosing a more productive experience. Moreover, I also find myself using these methods in many other areas of my decision making. I believe it is important to know what decision needs to be made and why before considering a hundred different options. By knowing and understanding the decision that needs to be made, I have been able to automatically limit (cut) options that apply to a given situation rather than be overwhelmed with options that provide more “fairy dust” than functionality. It is also important to me when making decisions to reflect and visualize the decision, its immediate benefits, and the second & third orders of effect.

Reference

Iyengar, S. (2011). How to make choosing easier. TED.com. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose#t-810440. 

Multistage Decision-Making

A632.1.4.RB

Chapter 3 of the Wharton text discusses the power of everyday reasoning in multistage decision-making. The text discusses the way that researchers solve multistage problems through the application of formulas that provide the most significant chance of success. Critically think about your own decision-making process and reflect on the process you use compared to the process outlined in the article. Would this improve your decision-making? What would the impact be on forward planning? How would you apply optimal dynamic decision analysis to predict future impact of today's decision?

According to Hoch and Kumreuther (2005), “Decision making is essentially the process of accepting less of something to get more of something else.” Thus, we must use our reasoning skills and abilities to make decisions on a daily basis. Fortunately for us, many of these daily decisions revolve around trivial things such as: what we choose to wear, what flavor of coffee we want, or where we choose to eat for lunch. Yet, there are instances where we are faced with more complex decisions that require critical thinking and keen problem solving skills. Wharton discusses such a process that is used by researchers to solve multistate problems. While this process resembles a mathematical formula, its logical foundation is designed to provide a straightforward answer (Hoch and Kunreuther, 2005). Although this process may prove to be fruitful for researchers, I do not see myself using this method as I have never quite been comfortable with mathematically based formulas in any fashion.

By and large, I tend to use past experiences as a foundation to develop clarity of the issue, its causes, any assumptions and courses of action (COA). This process however, according to Wharton, has limited abilities as people are poor learners of the past; as well as having the limited ability of forward planning or myopia (Hoch and Humreuther, 2005). In general, I would agree with Wharton’s statement. However, there are institutions that develop systematic processes that take many of these factors into account in order to provide the best decision making process. For example, while in the service we used (at every level) the military decision making process (MDMP). As leaders, in a training environment, we conducted countless practical exercises and military planning operations that centered around MDMP. Furthermore, commanders (leaders) at the unit level would use MDMP for operations and staff development. “The military decision-making process (MDMP) is a single, established, and proven analytical process” (FM 101-5, 1997). MDMP consists of the following seven steps:

·       Step 1. Receipt of the Mission

·       Step 2. Mission Analysis

·       Step 3. Course of Action Development

·       Step 4: Course of Action Analysis

·       Step 5. Course of Action Comparison

·       Step 6. Course of Action Approval

·       Step 7. Order Production

Although there are seven steps, the process of mission analysis, COA developments and war gaming can go on for a few hours to a few weeks (size of mission dependent). In fact, the below figure provides the process and many of the inputs/outputs involved.

(FM 101-5, 1997)

As one can imagine, this process can be cumbersome, yet through years of application, its users can become very proficient. It forces its users to thoroughly analyze the issues, develop courses of action, and see the second and third orders of effect (future). In fact, many currently serving and prior service military members still use this process as a framework in their daily lives as it provides a systematic and analytical process that is time tested and proven when used properly. Although though I am two years removed from service, I still utilize this process for complex decisions in the civilian workforce.

I believe that decision making is both science and an art; it is a skill that requires objectivity, critical thinking, and an inherent need for information. This like any other skill also requires constant practice and feedback. By using a systematic process, one can see both the large picture and the smaller points of friction. In doing so, the decision maker is better prepared to make the best decision possible by using their reasoning process and judgement (experience).

References

FM 101-5. (1997). Staff Organization and Operations. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/genesis_and_evolution/source_materials/FM-101-5_staff_organization_and_operations.pdf.

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1^st edition). Kendal edition.

Polyarchy Reflections

A633.9.3.RB

With the increase of uncertainty as a result of the dynamics that are prevalent in today’s globalization and technological advanced world, organizations need leaders and team members that are capable of making educated decisions in fluid environments that may be well beyond their comfort zone. In other words, yesterday’s oligarchical assumptions have out lived its intended use. Many of these traditional leadership models were developed in industries that enjoyed, to some degree, predictability and stability.

Exercising complex adaptive leadership is necessary more than ever as a result of the emergence of polyarchy. Being adaptive in thought and practice requires critical thinking and innovation that rarely exists in an oligarchy. Thus, when posed with the question of, “If polyarchy is fast replacing the old oligarchy assumptions does this make these old leadership models redundant? I believe that an adaptive leader and practitioner would consider some benefit in many of these outdated models. For example, the 70-20-10 model for learning and development was created in the 1980s and was once held as a key developmental approach. However, with “The arrival of the Internet, and the current proliferation of online and mobile learning technologies, has altered the training industry’s views of the 70:20:10 model.  At the minimum, a growing chorus of training professionals contends that the aged model does not reflect the market’s fast-growing emphasis on informal learning” (Trainingindustry.com, 2016). Yet, this model still has a fundamental purpose as it incorporates three significant developmental components of leadership that include experience, interaction, and education. “One frequent observation is that while the model’s specific ratios do not reflect current learning opportunities, it remains generally consistent with the developmental experiences of many individuals. Thus, the model continues to serve as a valuable guideline on how to employ various developmental experiences” (Trainingindusty.com, 2016). Indeed, an adaptive leader would be able to adjust such a model while keeping to the concept to suit their organizational and developmental needs as their situation requires.

It is important for leaders to recognize and embrace change. As conditions and factors increase uncertainty, leaders must understand how and when to influence their followers and their situations. Obolensky (2014) identifies this state as wu wei, “a concept which can best be described as the art of inaction, acting without effort (such as going with the flow) or refraining from any action which is contrary to the underlying natural flow” (p. 8). A key element is to know and understand one followers and not merely view them as a means to an end. Thus, one of the most significant ways this has impacted me and will continue to affect me as a leader in the future is that “more control is not always a good thing” in a complex environment. With a military background, it would be easy to resort to what I have known and practiced for many years. However, it has become painfully clear that certain highly structure and efficient military practices do not bare the same fruit in all situations or organizations. Indeed, “The counter-intuitive conclusion is that the more complex things are, the less directive leadership should be used” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 109).

I believe that the MSLD program has and will continue to provide insight and enlightenment in many if not all facades of leadership. Specifically, in education and interaction with other leaders with diverse backgrounds and experiences. Unfortunately, since I do not belong to an organization as I am a full-time student, I will have to substitute key experience learning though coaching and mentorship. In an attempt to be adaptive in this situation, I will utilize all of the above with established subject matter experts in an effort to explore, build, and develop future strategies.

References

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd edition): Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Training Industry. (2016). The 70:20:10 Model for Learning and Development. Retrieved from https://www.trainingindustry.com/wiki/entries/the-702010-model-for-learning-and-development.aspx.